From what John says it seems they are one and the same.
Yes, they are one and the same. I was trying to indicate the chronology.
Upvote
0
From what John says it seems they are one and the same.
The work doesn't have to be accepted by the world. There is much error among Christians today. That can be seen in the fact that there are over 19,000 different sects and denominations in Protestant Christianity alone.
It can also be seen in the changes that have taken place over the centuries.
The Scriptures haven't changed but the beliefs of Christians have. That indicates error.
know what I believe is correct when I find harmony. When my doctrine is in harmony with the Scriptures I know it is correct.
I'm not competent to address that. Der Alter might be, as he's studied NT Greek for years.BGT 2 Peter 1:1 Συμεὼν Πέτρος δοῦλος καὶ ἀπόστολος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῖς ἰσότιμον ἡμῖν λαχοῦσιν πίστιν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, (2Pe 1:1 BGT)
The Granville sharp rule is, Definite article/noun/ kai (and)/ noun. Both nouns pertain to the same person. In the above passage we have "ego" between the first noun and the word kai (and). I wondering if that affects the translation. Does change the Granville sharp rule?
The work doesn't have to be accepted by the world. There is much error among Christians today. That can be seen in the fact that there are over 19,000 different sects and denominations in Protestant Christianity alone. It can also be seen in the changes that have taken place over the centuries. The Scriptures haven't changed but the beliefs of Christians have. That indicates error. I know what I believe is correct when I find harmony. When my doctrine is in harmony with the Scriptures I know it is correct.
BGT 2 Peter 1:1 Συμεὼν Πέτρος δοῦλος καὶ ἀπόστολος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῖς ἰσότιμον ἡμῖν λαχοῦσιν πίστιν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, (2Pe 1:1 BGT)
The Granville sharp rule is, Definite article/noun/ kai (and)/ noun. Both nouns pertain to the same person. In the above passage we have "ego" between the first noun and the word kai (and). I wondering if that affects the translation. Does change the Granville sharp rule?
You are very badly mistaken the Greek word "ego" does not appear in this verse. The word you have highlighted ἡμῶν/émon is the first person plural pronoun "our." Ego is written, εγω.
You are very badly mistaken the Greek word "ego" does not appear in this verse. The word you have highlighted ἡμῶν/émon is the first person plural pronoun "our." Ego is written, εγω.
Yes, they are one and the same. I was trying to indicate the chronology.
You are very badly mistaken the Greek word "ego" does not appear in this verse. The word you have highlighted ἡμῶν/émon is the first person plural pronoun "our." Ego is written, εγω.
Hi,
Do you not remember that all you have comes from God? If you find something, do you own that apart from God? No. If you find that I and the rest of the world are wrong about God, how is it, that you think God would not want you to share that with the world? How do you think you do not owe that to the world?
Maybe that is not what you are saying. Maybe you are saying it is more important for you to be right to others, than it is imporatant that what you are right about, is actually right? If that is the case, there is a very predictable now, set of answers you will give. They will all be, I's and essentially ego. If you do not keep putting out I, then this is not true about you potentially.
How you can say, that that you don't have to share your work with the world, is of course done by some people, but they are always wrong, unless their work is actually wrong. Then the rest of mankind benifits.
To not share your completed work with mankind, is to rob mankind of something, that God gave you apart from the rest of us. Sure He can wait till you are no longer here and give that same informaion to others. He can do that and more. Yet not sharing your work, is also to rob you of something. Certainty.
I remember when questioners came out after any project of mine. "What about this? What about that?" Each time when the work I did was correct, each 'what' type of question, actually gave me more information than I originally had. And when this continues, eventually Scientific Probablility went from mostly true and useful, to Absolute fact. You lose this, while hurting the world in not presenting your findings to the rest of the world.
In my work also, we have a term related to people bringing up "What about Questions". Those in trade-talk are called out-lyers. The are pieces of valid or invalid items that I cannot understand at the time, and if ignored for awhile, the useful answer I am presenting as a solution, (like the theory that, the Apostles actual words will point out all Biblical and church errors, of your work.), is used as almost everything agrees but a few troubling points to me. (Some of those are actually erroneous usually)
It is when the project is over, and people are using my work, that if I was right in the first place, then those outliers show me even more truth than I had before. Thus the people I work for get an even better or more sure answer.
You don't have to present your work to the world. You can refuse that.
LOVE,
...Katherina., .... .
I'm not competent to address that. Der Alter might be, as he's studied NT Greek for years.
If you're moving away from the deity of Christ I hope you reconsider that path. His deity is not only scriptural in many places, but was clearly held by the ECFs. And since he is the only way to the Father, I think it's important to get him right.
For example, I worry about the Jehovah's Witnesses. Many of them have such a zeal for God, yet they disrespect Christ by calling him an angel. Will he overlook that disrespect? I don't know.
This "19,000 denominations!" claim is blatantly false and a Roman Catholica talking point ironically. Really it's a talking point for those who seek authoritarian control to spread heresy such as this.
Here's a great rebuttal of the claims that there's billions of Protestant denominations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_ZXbrbfXrY
What changes might those be? The alleged changes by you? Church history teaches the only changes have been by heretics such as yourself who proclaim things like Arianism, Donatism, etc.
Again you allege things with no evidence. What beliefs of Christians have changed? The only beliefs that have changed have been people trying to spread heresy such as yourself. Philippians Ch. 2 is a hymn to Christ as God that Paul quotes which was written long before before Philippians was written. That's a historical fact you can Google. The only error was by Arius and his fellow travelers like Donatists, Sabellians, etc.
Oh so you mean the harmony that is your homebrew doctrine that claims 2,000 years of Christianity is wrong and you somehow have finally got it all figured out much like Joseph Smith, Sun Myung Moon, Charles Taze Russell, etc?
Hi,
Do you have to do this, as has been reported to me once. Do you have to not only use ancient Greek, but also include in there, Aramaic Idioms????
I was told that no one knowing modern Greek can translate the Bible correctly, as it requires ancient Greek in order to do that.
Further I was told that since Greek and Aramaic were intermixed back then, any slang/idioms were usually of Aramaic origins, but said now using using Greek. Thus both Greek and Aramaic idioms, were used also, making a translators job tough, if this is true, what I have been told.
LOVE,
...Me., .... .
Chronology? The Father begot the Son, the Word, what is the chronology?
First the Word then the Son.
What has been reported to you, by whom and for what purpose? I use what is in the Bible, Koine Greek and Hebrew. We may not know the exact pronunciation of some of the words but we know the meaning from the context and their having been translated into other languages.
What has been reported to you, by whom and for what purpose? I use what is in the Bible, Koine Greek and Hebrew. We may not know the exact pronunciation of some of the words but we know the meaning from the context and their having been translated into other languages.
Can you show that from Scripture?
John 1:1 speaks of the Word in the beginning. The Word was not begotten. The Word became flesh in the form of the Son later (John 1:14). The Son was begotten later as Jesus and identified by God and Psalmist.
Hi,
In what form begotten are you referring to? In Psalms 2 it seems that God The Father begot Jesus, as God from God. Later He is begotten of Mary and The Holy Spirit as God from man and God.
LOVE,
...Katie., .... .